DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, species B, claims 1-3, 5-9, 16-20 and new claims 21-27, in the reply filed on 12/15/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16-19 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michikoshi, US Publication No. 2020/0350235 A1.
Michikoshi anticipates:
1. A bonding structure, comprising (see fig. 3):
a first pad (12) having a top surface including a first region (e.g. center) and a second region (e.g. right edge), wherein the second region is closer to an edge of the top surface of the first pad than the first region is; and
a plurality of first wires (160, 62) on the top surface of the first pad, wherein a number of the first wires (e.g. 8 wires) on the first region is greater than a number of the first wires (e.g. 1 wire) on the second region. See Michikoshi at para. [0001] – [0098], figs. 1-14.
2. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wires (160, 62) have a first wiring density (e.g. 8 wires) on the first region and a second wiring density (e.g. 1 wire) on the second region less than the first wiring density, fig. 3.
3. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein a wiring density of the first wires decreases from the first region toward the second region (e.g. decreases from 8 wires to 1 wire), fig. 3.
16. A package structure, comprising (see fig. 3):
a first substrate (10) comprising a first pad (12) and a second pad (13) adjacent to the first pad;
a second substrate (130) comprising a third pad (131); and
a wire bundle structure (160, 62) between the first pad (12) and the third pad (131), wherein the wire bundle structure (160, 62) comprises a dense portion (e.g. 8 wires) configured to electrically connect the first pad (12) to the third pad (131) and a porous portion (e.g. 1 wires) configured to reduce an electrical transmission between the wire bundle structure (160, 62) and the second pad (13) when the first pad (12) is electrically connected to the third pad (131) through the wire bundle structure (e.g. The porous portion that is the single wire 62 reduces electrical transmission between the wires 160 and the second pad 13, because wire 62 is coupled to terminal 50. Thus, wire 62 reduces an electrical transmission to the second pad 13 because it is not coupled to the second pad 13.) See Michikoshi at para. [0001] – [0098], figs. 1-14.
17. The package structure as claimed in claim 16, wherein the porous portion (e.g.1 wire at right edge of 12) is between the dense portion (e.g. 8 wires) and the second pad (13), fig. 3.
18. The package structure as claimed in claim 17, wherein a boundary of the dense portion (e.g. 8 wires) is recessed from an edge (e.g. right edge) of the first pad (12) by at least 20% of a width of the first pad (12), fig. 3.
Regarding claim 18:
MPEP § 2125, Drawings as Prior Art indicates:
”Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)…When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.”
Michikoshi further teaches:
19. The package structure as claimed in claim 17, wherein the porous portion (e.g.1 wire at right edge of 12) is on a peripheral region of a surface of the first pad (12), fig. 3.
25. The package structure as claimed in claim 16, wherein the porous portion is configured to prevent short circuit between the first pad (12) and the second pad (13) (e.g. The porous portion that is wire 62 prevents a short circuit between the first pad 12 and second pad 13 because it is not coupled to the second pad 13. The wire 62 is coupled to terminal 50.), fig. 3.
26. The package structure as claimed in claim 16, wherein the wire bundle structure includes a plurality of first wires (160, 62) formed on and extending from the first pad (12) and a plurality of second wires (160, 62) formed on and extending from the third pad (131), wherein the package structure further comprises a plurality of third wires (61) formed on and extending from the second pad (13), wherein a density distribution of the plurality of third wires (e.g. 1 wires) is different from a density distribution of the plurality of first wires (160, 62), fig. 3.
27. The package structure as claimed in claim 16, (see fig. 3) the wire bundle structure (160, 62) includes a first curved nanowire (e.g. see curvature of wires in fig. 4) formed on and extending from the first pad (12) and a second curved nanowire formed on and extending from the third pad (131), wherein the first curved nanowire is free from contacting the second curved nanowire (e.g. The wires run substantially parallel.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 16-21 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khandros et al., US Patent No. 6,330,164.
Khandros teaches:
1. A bonding structure, comprising (see fig. 14 annotated below):
PNG
media_image1.png
442
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first pad (408) having a top surface including a first region (e.g. center) and a second region (e.g. edge), wherein the second region is closer to an edge of the top surface of the first pad than the first region is; and
a plurality of first wires (410) on the top surface of the first pad (408), wherein a number of the first wires on the first region is greater than a number of the first wires on the second region (e.g. See Remarks below.) See Khandros at col 1-20, ln 1–67, figs. 1-14.
Regarding claim 1:
Referring to MPEP § 2141, Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In fig. 14, Khandros does not delineate first regions and second regions.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, can delineate a region of dense wires in the center and a region of sparse wires near the edge as annotated in fig. 14 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form “wherein a number of the first wires on the first region is greater than a number of the first wires on the second region” because a region of dense wires in the center corresponds to the claimed “first region” and a region of sparse wires near the edge corresponds to the claimed “second region” as annotated in fig. 14 above.
See MPEP § 2125, Drawings as Prior Art:
”Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)…When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.”
Khandros further teaches:
2. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wires have a first wiring density on the first region and a second wiring density on the second region less than the first wiring density (e.g. In fig. 14, Khandros teaches or suggests a region of dense wires in the center and a region of sparse wires is near the edge.)
3. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein a wiring density of the first wires decreases from the first region toward the second region (e.g. In fig. 14, Khandros teaches or suggests a region of dense wires in the center and a region of sparse wires is near the edge.)
5. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein a length of the first wires (410) on the second region (e.g. edge) of the top surface is less than a length of the first wires on the first region (e.g. center) of the top surface. (e.g. Khandros teaches or suggests a shorter length of wires as annotated in fig. 14 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form “a length of the first wires on the second region of the top surface is less than a length of the first wires on the first region of the top surface” because there are shorter wires with ends that do not extend down to pads 408, 409.)
7. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a second pad (406) over the first pad (408); and
a plurality of second wires (e.g. other 410) on a bottom surface of the second pad and electrically connected (e.g. because entangled) to the plurality of first wires (410), wherein a portion of the plurality of first wires is spaced apart (e.g. there are spaces between wires 410) from a portion of the plurality of second wires, fig. 14.
8. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 7, wherein the portion of the plurality of second wires is over and spaced apart from the plurality of first wires (e.g. In fig. 14 there are spaces between wires 410.)
9. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 7, wherein the first wires comprise a first curved portion (e.g. wires 410 are curved), and the first curved portion extends from the first region (e.g. center) to the second region (e.g. edge) of the top surface of the first pad (408), fig. 14.
21. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second region (e.g. edge) surrounds the first region (e.g. center), fig. 14.
23. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 7, wherein the plurality of first wires (410) includes a first nanowire and the plurality of second wires (e.g. other 410) includes a second nanowire and a third nanowire, wherein the first nanowire is tangled with the second nanowire and the third nanowire (e.g. the wires are entangled in fig. 14)
24. The bonding structure as claimed in claim 7, wherein one of the plurality of first wires (410) extends from the top surface of the first pad (408) toward the bottom surface of the second pad (406) and contacts (e.g. wire 410 form electrical connections between pads 408 and 406) the bottom surface of the second pad, fig. 14.
16. A package structure, comprising (see fig. 14 annotated above):
a first substrate comprising a first pad (406) and a second pad (407 or 409) adjacent to the first pad;
a second substrate comprising a third pad (408); and
a wire bundle structure (410) between the first pad (406) and the third pad (408), wherein the wire bundle structure comprises a dense portion (e.g. region of dense wires annotated) configured to electrically connect the first pad to the third pad and a porous portion (e.g. region of sparse wires annotated) configured to reduce an electrical transmission (e.g. Because Khandro’s wires are arranged as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the wires in the spare region/porous portion are capable of the function to reduce an electrical transmission.) between the wire bundle structure (410) and the second pad (407 or 409) when the first pad (406) is electrically connected to the third pad (408) through the wire bundle structure (410). See Khandros at col 1-20, ln 1–67, figs. 1-14.
17. The package structure as claimed in claim 16, wherein the porous portion (e.g. region of sparse wires annotated) is between the dense portion (e.g. region of dense wires annotated) and the second pad (407 or 409), fig. 14.
18. The package structure as claimed in claim 17, wherein a boundary of the dense portion (e.g. region of dense wires annotated) is recessed from an edge of the first pad (406) by at least 20% of a width of the first pad (e.g. The region of dense wires is disposed towards the center of the first pad in fig. 14.)
19. The package structure as claimed in claim 17, wherein the porous portion (e.g. region of sparse wires annotated) is on a peripheral region (e.g. edge) of a surface of the first pad (406), fig. 14.
20. The package structure as claimed in claim 16, wherein the dense portion (e.g. region of dense wires annotated) covers at least 50% of an area of a surface of the first pad (406).
Regarding claims 18 and 20:
MPEP § 2125, Drawings as Prior Art indicates:
”Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)…When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures.”
Khandros further teaches:
25. The package structure as claimed in claim 16, wherein the porous portion (e.g. region of sparse wires annotated) is configured to prevent short circuit between the first pad (406) and the second pad (407 or 409) (e.g. Because Khandro’s wires are arranged as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the wires in the spare region/porous portion are capable of the function to prevent short circuit.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khandros, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kuo et al., US Publication No. 2011/0175220 A1.
Regarding claim 6:
Khandros teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach:
wherein an elevation of the first region is lower than an elevation of the second region with respect to a bottom surface of the first pad.
In an analogous art, Kuo teaches:
(see fig. 11) wherein an elevation of the first region (e.g. center) lower than an elevation of the second region (e.g. edge) with respect to a bottom surface of the first pad (1146). See Kuo at para. [0053] – [0058].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Khandros with the teachings of Kuo because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select favorite shape (e.g. shape of the pad) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, IV. Changes in Size, Shape, or Sequence of Adding Ingredients.
Because the criticality of the particular shape of the pad has not been presented with persuasive evidence, the shape is considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04, IV(B).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michikoshi, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22:
Michikoshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach:
wherein a width of the first wires on the second region of the top surface is greater than a width of the first wires on the first region of the top surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form “wherein a width of the first wires on the second region of the top surface is greater than a width of the first wires on the first region of the top surface”, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, IV. Changes in Size, Shape, or Sequence of Adding Ingredients.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
23 February 2026